Organizations for Rural Quality (RQC/F)

Grass Valley Managed Growth Initiative

All supporting documents will be posted at www.ccatnc.org

Questions - Week Four

Will the Managed Growth Initiative promote sprawl?

Opponents of the Managed Growth Initiative, who include major developers and the Nevada County Contractor’s Association, have asserted that the Initiative will result in: “More Sprawl & Less Open Space - their 'Initiative' [the Managed Growth Initiative] would destroy the opportunity to create compact, walkable, vibrant neighborhoods inside our City. It would force more development into rural, Western Nevada County.”[1]

ANSWER:

No, the Initiative does not promote sprawl and less open space. It asks the City to follow its General Plan, which specifically states these goals and objectives:

"	Promote infill as an alternative to peripheral expansion where feasible.
	Reduction in the amount of land necessary to accommodate future growth.
	Reduction in environmental impacts associated with peripheral growth.
	Continued revitalization of Central Grass Valley."[2]

These goals and objectives are one key reason that the "SDA Study", commissioned by the City and accepted in April 2006, examined the impacts of developing the infill properties within the City, without any annexations. The study concluded that the infill strategy would be far more beneficial to Grass Valley’s fiscal well-being than the other alternatives, including the developers’ proposals for the big annexation areas (the Special Development Areas, 'SDA's).[3]

In addition, the Land Use Map of the General Plan includes an urban growth boundary, called the Planning Area Boundary, beyond which the City cannot expand without a major revision of the General Plan. The Managed Growth Initiative would ratify this boundary, and ensure that this urban growth boundary cannot be revised without a vote of the residents.

Recently Mayor Johnson pointed out the anti-sprawl concepts within the General Plans of the County and City:

"	One of the central themes of the Nevada County General Plan is to direct new development to existing urban areas or cities, such as Grass Valley, in order to reduce sprawl. New development is to be directed into areas that have urban services such as sewer and water."

"	After Nevada County adopted their General Plan in 1995, and the city adopted the 2020 General Plan in 1999, a significant shift of land-use policy was established, as much of the future growth projected for Western Nevada County would be directed to Grass Valley. This philosophy was embedded in both Grass Valley's and the County's general plans."[4]

We agree with Mayor Johnson’s analysis. The assertion that the Initiative will result in “more sprawl” or “force more development into rural, Western Nevada County”, is nonsense. We add a few additional reasons:

In the first place, the pattern of development in Nevada County is beyond the jurisdiction of Grass Valley, it is principally the responsibility of County government and residents.
Secondly, the zoning and development pattern in the unincorporated county is already well established and will not permit a tremendous amount of additional growth. Major changes in the zoning for outlying areas would raise the ire of those property owners and no one is proposing this.
Third, additional large developments which exceed the General Plan will only add to our overall ultimate population number, not reduce sprawl.
Fourth , the County has neither the infrastructure (e.g., sewage, roads) to support projects of the scale and density as those proposed for the SDAs, or for other annexations at urban densities, nor the intention of providing it. One developer claims that adding 925 homes in the Loma Rica Ranch will prevent sprawl, but ignores that by doing so, it will reduce open space and create housing far in excess of what can be accommodated by the City's own General Plan.
Finally, and not least, the City and County are in express agreement that significant development in Grass Valley’s planning area will occur through annexation of the affected land to the City. The County has adopted policy to this effect.

To summarize, both the Grass Valley and the Nevada County General Plans are designed to inhibit sprawl surrounding Grass Valley. And, although the opponents seem to lack confidence in the wisdom of the community, if future projects or general plan concepts are proposed which will further nurture the goals of compactness, walkability, and vibrancy in new and different ways, the voters of Grass Valley will surely recognize and support them when such amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element are proposed.

[1] Grass Valley United, paid advertisement in The Union, April 26, 2008, p.A8.
[2] City of Grass Valley 2020 General Plan (1999), p.3-18.
[3] Economic and Fiscal Conditions Study for the City of Grass Valley, April 2006, Appendix E.
[4] A vision for the future of Grass Valley, Other Voices, The Union, Mayor Mark Johnson, May 3, 2008.

Next: Questions - Week Five (Link)